Wednesday, January 20, 2010

(CNN) -- For weeks, he was the underdog candidate, running behind in the race for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts. But today, Republican Scott Brown could deal President Obama his first defeat in the 2010 congressional elections.
Trailing by double digits a little more than a week ago, Brown has edged ahead of Democrat Martha Coakley in the race to fill the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.
Brown, a state senator, has campaigned as the pickup truck-driving candidate, capitalizing on voter frustrations and vowing to send Obama's health care bill "back to its drawing board."
Coakley, the state's attorney general, had been considered a shoo-in, but now her party is desperately trying to keep a pivotal Senate seat from slipping away.

"This was supposed to be a walk. It's fairly incredible that here we are ... and Ted Kennedy's seat is actually up for grabs," said Scott Helman, political editor for The Boston Globe.
Helman attributed the closeness of the race to two things: "I think Coakley's campaign operated for a long time as if this was going to be a fairly easy race; and two, Scott Brown's campaign has done a very good job, capitalizing on anger at Washington, anger over health care, anger about the deficit, the sort of throw-them-out mentality," he said.
A GOP win in Tuesday's special election would mean that Democrats would lose their 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, jeopardizing much of Obama's agenda, including health care reform.
Coakley's been criticized for running a lackluster campaign and not fighting hard enough for the seat. Massachusetts is considered a Democratic stronghold, but, by most accounts, Coakley has been unable to fire up her party.
Hoping to revive her sputtering campaign, Obama and former President Bill Clinton joined Coakley on the campaign trail.
"If you were fired up in the last election, I need you more fired up in this election," Obama urged a crowd at a Coakley campaign rally Sunday.
Supporters say Coakley is the best candidate to carry on Kennedy's lifelong fight for health care. Kennedy, known as the liberal lion of the Senate, died in August of brain cancer.
For the past three years, Coakley has been Massachusetts' attorney general. She previously spent eight years as the district attorney for Middlesex.
On her campaign Web page, the Democratic candidate points to her 20-year career in public service and her commitment to advocating the best interests of Massachusetts.
Heading into the race, few political analysts believed Brown had a serious shot at beating Coakley. Brown was underfunded and unknown statewide. No Republican has won a U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts since 1972. Democrats control the state's congressional delegation. They also hold the state's governorship, along with overwhelming majorities in the state legislature.
But Brown, who is in his third term in the state Senate, has charged forward on a pledge to end wasteful government spending and hand politics back to the people.
Before he was in the state Senate, Brown served three terms as a state representative. He's also a member of the Massachusetts National Guard.
"He's branded himself brilliantly. He has run as the people's senator," said Jennifer Donahue, a political analyst and contributor to The Huffington Post.
Asked in a debate last week if he was willing to sit in Kennedy's seat and block health care reform, Brown replied, "With all due respect, it's not the Kennedys' seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."
Donahue said that was the game changer for Brown because Coakley "didn't have an effective answer against that."
More so than a statement on the candidates' strength and weaknesses, it's discontent among voters in Massachusetts that is driving this election, said David Gergen, a political analyst and CNN contributor.
"Scott Brown has turned this into a referendum on what's going on in Washington, especially with health care. His campaign began to gain traction when he said that, 'I am going to be the 41st senator, the one who can stop a lot of this,' " Gergen said.
Gergen also pointed to a major sports gaffe that might have hurt Coakley's image in Red Sox nation. In a recent radio interview, she suggested that former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan.
"When she was clueless the other day about who Curt Schilling was ... you can imagine what that did," Gergen said.
John Avlon, author of "Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics," says in the end, the results of Tuesday's election rest in the hands of independent voters. Democrats far outnumber Republicans in Massachusetts, but there are more independents than Republicans and Democrats combined.
"Independents are going to decide who wins this election, bottom line," he said."Independents asserting their real power even in Massachusetts should be a huge wake-up call to Democrats and Republicans."
But no matter what the outcome, Avlon said this shouldn't be viewed as voters turning on Obama.
"I don't think it's a referendum on Obama necessarily personally, because he is still personally popular with many independents. It's the Democratic Congress that's being reacted against.

"Independents like the checks and balances of divided government. They dislike the ideological arrogance and legislative overreach that comes when one party controls both the White House and Congress. That's what you're seeing," he said.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Monday, January 18, 2010 By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief [Correction: Although the Washington Post’s Sunday story that focused primarily on a new Washington Post-ABC News poll—“Poll Shows Growing Disappointment, Polarization Over Obama’s Performance” by Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta—made no mention of the fact that the poll found that 58 percent of Americans say they favor a smaller government that provides fewer services, another story in Sunday’s Post—“One Year Later Assessing Obama; Testing the Promise of Pragmatism” by Dan Balz--did mention that finding.

The tenth paragraph of Balz’s story said: “The poll also shows how much ground Obama has lost during his first year of trying to convince the public that more government is the answer to the country's problems. By 58 percent to 38 percent, Americans said they prefer smaller government and fewer services to larger government with more services. Since he won the Democratic nomination in June 2008, the margin between those favoring smaller over larger government has moved in Post-ABC polls from five points to 20 points.”]

(CNSNews.com) - A large majority of Americans say they want a smaller government that provides them with fewer services, according to a new poll from the Washington Post and ABC News. But the Washington Post story about the poll makes no mention of this fact.

The poll asked: “Generally speaking, would you say you favor smaller government with fewer services, or larger government with more services?”

Fifty-eight percent said they favor a smaller government with fewer services, and only 38 percent said they favor a larger government with more services.

The Post did not mention the results from this poll question in its news story about the poll.

The poll surveyed a random sample of 1,083 American adults from Jan. 12-15, 2010.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Attacks on Scott Rasmussen and Fox News show a disturbing attitude toward dissent.

Polling is both an art and a science, but recently it's also become a subject of political intimidation.One shot was fired by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Dec. 8, when he dismissed Gallup's daily tracking of President Obama's job approval. It had hit a record low of 47%, and Mr. Gibbs called the results meaningless:
"If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG I'd visit my doctor. If you look back I think five days ago. . . there was an 11 point spread, now there's a one point spread. . . I'm sure a six-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that. I don't put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is the daily Gallup trend. I don't pay a lot of attention to meaninglessness."
Polling is a science because it requires a range of sampling techniques to be used to select a sample. It is an art because constructing a sample and asking questions is something that requires skill, experience and intellectual integrity. The possibility of manipulation—or, indeed, intimidation—is great.
A recent case in point is what has happened to Scott Rasmussen, an independent pollster we both work with, who has an unchallenged record for both integrity and accuracy. Mr. Rasmussen correctly predicted the 2004 and 2008 presidential races within a percent, and accurately called the vast majority of contested Senate races in 2004 and 2006. His work has sometimes been of concern for Republicans, particularly when they were losing congressional seats in 2004 and 2006.
Most recently, Mr. Rasmussen has been the leader in chronicling the decline in the public's support for President Obama. And so he has been the target of increasingly virulent attacks from left-wing bloggers seeking to undermine his credibility, and thus muffle his findings. A Politico piece, "Low Favorables: Democrats Rip Rasmussen," reported on the attacks from blogs like the Daily Kos, Swing State Project, and Media Matters.
"Rasmussen Caught With Their Thumb on the Scale," cried the Daily Kos last summer. "Rasmussen Reports, You Decide," the blog Swing State Project headlined not long ago in a play on the Fox News motto. "I don't think there are Republican polling firms that get as good a result as Rasmussen does," Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow with the progressive research outfit Media Matters, said in a Jan. 2 Politico article. "His data looks like it all comes out of the RNC."
Liberals have also noted that Rasmussen's daily presidential tracking polls have consistently placed Mr. Obama's approval numbers around five percentage points lower than other polling outfits throughout the year. This is because Rasmussen surveys likely voters, who are now more Republican in orientation than the overall electorate. (Gallup and other pollsters survey the entire adult population.) On other key issues like health care, Rasmussen's numbers have been echoed by everyone else. Mr. Rasmussen, who is avowedly not part of the Beltway crowd in Washington, has been willing to take on issues like ethics and corruption in ways no other pollsters have been able to do. He was also one of the first pollsters to stress people's real fear of the growing size of government, the size of the deficit, and the concern about spending at a time when these issues were not really on Washington's radar screen. The reaction against him has been strident and harsh. He's been called an adjunct of the Republican Party when in fact he has never worked for any political party. Nor has he consulted with any candidates seeking elective office.
The attacks on Rasmussen and Gallup follow an effort by the White House to wage war on Fox News and to brand it, as former White House Director of Communications Anita Dunn did, as "not a real news organization." The move backfired; in time, other news organizations rallied around Fox News. But the message was clear: criticize the White House at your peril. As pollsters for two Democratic presidents who served before Barack Obama, we view this unprecedented attempt to silence the media and to attack the credibility of unpopular polling as chilling to the free exercise of democracy.
This is more than just inside baseball. As practicing political consultants, both of us have seen that the established parties try to stifle dissent among their political advisers and consultants. The parties go out of their way to try to determine in advance what questions will be asked and what answers will be obtained to reinforce existing party messages. The thing most feared is independence, which is what Mr. Rasmussen brings.
Mr. Gibbs's comments and the recent attempts by the Democratic left to muzzle Scott Rasmussen reflect a disturbing trend in our politics: a tendency to try to stifle legitimate feedback about political concerns—particularly if the feedback is negative to the incumbent administration.Mr. Caddell served as a pollster for President Jimmy Carter. Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is the author of "The Political Fix" just out from Henry Holt.

VATICAN CITY – "Avatar" is wooing audiences worldwide with visually dazzling landscapes and nature-loving blue creatures. But the Vatican is no easy crowd to please.The Vatican newspaper and radio station are criticizing James Cameron's 3-D blockbuster for flirting with the idea that worship of nature can replace religion — a notion the pope has warned against. They call the movie a simplistic and sappy tale, despite its awe-inspiring special effects.
"Not much behind the images" was how the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, summed it up in a headline.
As the second highest-grossing movie ever, "Avatar" is challenging the record set by Cameron's previous movie "Titanic."
Generally it has been critically acclaimed and is touted as a leading Oscar contender.Bolivia's first indigenous president, Evo Morales, has praised "Avatar" for what he calls its message of saving the environment from exploitation. But the movie also has drawn a number of critical voices. Some American conservative bloggers have decried its anti-militaristic message; a small group of people have said the movie contains racist themes.
To Vatican critics, the alien extravaganza is just "bland."
Cameron "tells the story without going deep into it, and ends up falling into sappiness," said L'Osservatore Romano. Vatican Radio called it "rather harmless" but said it was no heir to sci-fi masterpieces of the past.
Most significantly, much of the Vatican criticism was directed at the movie's central theme of man vs. nature.
L'Osservatore said the film "gets bogged down by a spiritualism linked to the worship of nature." Similarly, Vatican Radio said it "cleverly winks at all those pseudo-doctrines that turn ecology into the religion of the millennium."
"Nature is no longer a creation to defend, but a divinity to worship," the radio said.
Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said that while the movie reviews are just that — film criticism, not theological pronouncements — they do reflect Pope Benedict XVI's views on the dangers of turning nature into a "new divinity."
Benedict has often spoken about the need to protect the environment, earning the nickname of "green pope." But he also has balanced that call with a warning against turning environmentalism into neo-paganism.
In a recent World Day of Peace message, the pontiff warned against any notions that equate human beings with other living things in the name of a "supposedly egalitarian vision." He said such notions "open the way to a new pantheism tinged with neo-paganism, which would see the source of man's salvation in nature alone, understood in purely naturalistic terms."
The pope explained in the message that while many experience tranquillity and peace when coming into contact with nature, a correct relationship between man and the environment should not lead to "absolutizing nature" or "considering it more important than the human person."The Vatican newspaper occasionally likes to comment in its cultural pages on movies or pop culture icons, as it did recently about "The Simpsons" or U2. In one famous instance, several Vatican officials spoke out against "The Da Vinci Code."
In this case, the reviews came out after a red-carpet "Avatar" preview held in Rome just a stone's throw from St. Peter's Square. The movie — which has made more than $1.3 billion at box offices worldwide, partly boosted by higher 3-D ticket prices — will be released Friday in Italy.
"So much stupefying, enchanting technology, but few genuine emotions," said L'Osservatore in one of three articles devoted to "Avatar" in its Sunday editions. The plotline of aliens who live on a distant unspoiled planet and the humans who want to pillage their resources is a universal theme that can be reminiscent of past colonizations and wars, the paper said. As such, it is easy to relate to it, but also unoriginal.
"Everything is reduced to an overly simple anti-imperialistic and anti-militaristic parable," it said. In America, the big numbers and media hype have been accompanied by some controversy.
Blog posts, newspaper articles, tweets and YouTube videos have criticized the film, with some calling it "a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people" and that it reinforces "the white Messiah fable." Cameron says the real theme is about respecting others' differences.
An LA Times blog noted that the movie "has inflamed the passions of right-wing bloggers and pundits."
"Cameron incensed many voices on the right by acknowledging of-the-moment messages about imperialism, greed, ecological disregard and corporate irresponsibility," it said. Anti-smoking lobbies have denounced the cigarette-puffing character played by Sigourney Weaver.
Back at the Vatican, the reviews did praise the groundbreaking visuals of the movie. Vatican Radio said that "really never before have such surprising images been seen," while L'Osservatore said the movie's worth lies in its "extraordinary visual impact."

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Conan O'Brien during his debut as the host of NBC's 'The Tonight Show' on this June 1, 2009.

Comedian Conan O'Brien and his advisers were mulling career options Friday, including jumping to a rival television network, people familiar with the matter said, leaving the fate of NBC's late-night shake-up in limbo.
A person familiar with Mr. O'Brien's camp said there had been "approaches" by other networks since it emerged Thursday that NBC hopes to return former "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno to his longtime 11:35 p.m. eastern perch at the General Electric Co. network, displacing Mr. O'Brien.
One suitor is News Corp.'s Fox network, which has had early discussions with Mr. O'Brien's circle about hosting another late-night show, according to other people. News Corp. also owns The Wall Street Journal.
Mr. O'Brien, who currently hosts "The Tonight Show," is the big question mark in NBC's plan, which is an about-face after the network installed Mr. Leno in a nightly prime-time show in September. The move was greeted by a hailstorm of criticism, and the show has had lackluster viewership.
NBC's plan would push Mr. O'Brien's "Tonight" back by half an hour to 12:05 Eastern time to make room for a shortened version of Mr. Leno's current show, according to people familiar with the matter.
If Mr. O'Brien doesn't agree, Mr. Leno would return to hosting "Tonight" for its normal hour, one of these people said. Although the moves aren't finalized, Mr. Leno has agreed in principle to both options, the person said, adding: "One way or another, Jay will be on at 11:35."

Journal Community

Conan O'Brien during an interview with then 'Tonight Show' host Jay Leno on March 27, 2008.

At least some in Mr. O'Brien's camp believe NBC's proposed switch is unfair because Mr. O'Brien gave up the opportunity more than five years ago to move to another network when NBC promised him the "Tonight Show" slot, according to a person familiar with their thinking. NBC is likely to want a decision before it meets with local TV affiliates on Jan. 21. But Mr. O'Brien is in no rush to make a decision, the person said.

An NBC spokeswoman didn't have any comment. The network said yesterday that remains "committed to keeping Conan O'Brien on NBC."
Mr. O'Brien faces potential pitfalls regardless of what he chooses to do. Staying at NBC would entail following Mr. Leno and losing his coveted time slot less than a year after his June debut. Moving away could put him in competition with Mr. Leno just as some television executives have expressed concern about the size of Mr. O'Brien's audience.
From Sept. 21 to Jan. 3, Mr. O'Brien's "Tonight" averaged about half as many viewers as Mr. Leno garnered a year earlier, according to Nielsen Co. Mr. O'Brien has seen far less steep declines among younger viewers, and he has remained even with his CBS competitor David Letterman among viewers in the the key 18-to-49-year-old category in the fourth quarter.
People close to Mr. O'Brien say his ratings declines result from Mr. Leno's poor performance earlier in the evening, according to a person familiar with their thinking.
Fox executives are potentially interested in Mr. O'Brien and are crunching the numbers to see whether adding Mr. O'Brien would make sense, according to people familiar with the matter. The conversations haven't yet turned serious, one of the people said, in part because Mr. O'Brien is still under contract to NBC.
"While Conan is a great talent, he's still under contract with NBC, so we'll have to see how it all plays out," a Fox spokesperson said.
Among Fox's concerns are the shrinking profits of late night as competition grows, and Mr. O'Brien's soft ratings, the people said. The network could also have trouble persuading local Fox TV stations to give up shows they have already purchased to fill their late-night hours.
Another possible home for Mr. O'Brien could be Walt Disney Co.'s ABC, which was interested in the possibility of picking up Mr. Leno in late 2008.
But ABC has had relative ratings success in the past year with its late-night newsmagazine "Nightline," apparently damping its interest. "With all due respect to Conan, we like the late-night hand that we are current playing," an ABC spokesman said. Write to Sam Schechner at sam.schechner@wsj.com and Shira Ovide at shira.ovide@wsj.com

Thursday, January 7, 2010

North Dakota Democrats are actively pursuing liberal MSNBC talk show host Ed Schultz as a candidate to replace Sen. Byron Dorgan, who announced Tuesday he would not seek reelection.

State House Minority Leader Merle Boucher told POLITICO he made an official overture to Schultz late Tuesday night about launching a campaign and said he believes the TV commentator is "intrigued by the idea."
"We have to find someone that has a high profile and a national fundraising base, and I can't think of anyone better than Ed Schultz in that regard," said Boucher. "He certainly didn't say no to me by any means," he added.

Dorgan's retirement announcement took state Democrats by surprise and immediately sent party leaders scrambling for a viable opponent to take on likely Republican candidate Gov. John Hoeven. Hoeven, who led Dorgan by double digits in public polls this fall, is expected to announce his candidacy within weeks.

"Very few people have the resources and the backing to take on John Hoeven, and Ed has taken on John Hoeven before on his radio show. I don't think anyone knows John Hoeven and his record better than Ed Schultz," said Boucher.

Minutes after Dorgan's announcement, Schultz began receiving e-mails from across the country, urging him to run.

"We've gotten a ton of e-mails," said Vern Thompson, programming manager for Schultz's nationally syndicated radio show. "I think it's something he would be interested in, but it is a little early. To be honest, I don't know what he will do," added Thompson, who served as executive director of the North Dakota Democratic Party from 2001 to 2004.

In that role, Thompson tried to recruit Schultz to run against Hoeven for governor in 2004. He said Schultz seriously considered it but passed on a race to pursue his broadcasting career.

"It was the right decision because now we have this huge voice at 30 Rock," Thompson said. MSNBC host Schultz said Wednesday during his show that he might run for the seat and noted that state Democrats requested that he consider it.

Schultz said on his show Tuesday evening that he believes North Dakota law holds that a candidate would have to be a resident for the past five years to run, and he hasn't been living in the state.
“I'm flattered to have gotten a lot of calls in the past 24 hours,” Schultz told POLITICO through a spokesperson, adding that “it is an honor to be asked to consider it.”
He said no one from the national party had contacted him.
When asked whether MSNBC colleague Chris Matthews’s flirtation with a Senate run in Pennsylvania has influenced his decision whether to run, he said it had not.
“Chris's decision had not impacted my response to this,” Schultz said.

State Senate Minority Leader David O'Connell said Schultz would be a strong candidate not only because of his ability to rake in cash from around the country but because of his detailed knowledge of Hoeven's record.

Throughout Hoeven's first term, Schultz repeatedly lambasted Hoeven as "an empty suit" during his morning Fargo radio show — a characterization he repeated Tuesday on his show.

"But, you know, if I was still there," Schultz said, "I'd love to run against the empty suit, because that's what I used to call John Hoeven, the sitting governor."

"A lot of people think he's blowing hot air, but the thing is, he never put anything on the air until he confirmed it. He'd always call about stuff and wanted to check his sources," said O’Connell.

Boucher said he didn't expect Schultz to make a snap decision, and Democrats acknowledge that it might be hard for the talk show host to give up a lucrative and glittery broadcasting career for the tiring and tedious campaign trail.

"He said he would visit and get back to me, and I'm going to give him all the time he needs to make that decision," said Boucher.Andy Barr and Michael Calderone contributed to this report.